Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1726 (ALL)

Rama Shankar Yadav v. Onkar Yadav

2003-08-04

RAKESH TIWARI

body2003
ORDER : RAKESH TIWARI, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Father of applicant, namely, Phool Chand Yadav was working as Secretary since 1988 and later on placed on the post of clerk/cashier in District Co-operative Bank Branch Madhuban in Mau after approval granted by Sewa Mandal from April, 1996 and he died in-harness on 28.9.1997 leaving behind his widow and three sons including two minors. The applicant was High School at the time of death of his father. He moved an application to the Secretary, District Co-operative Bank, Mau on 4.4.1998 for compassionate appointment. The Board vide resolution dated 5.10.2000 resolved that it was mandatory and necessary to have direction from Sewa Mandal before making any appointment. The resolution and the recommendations are as under: OTHER LANGUAGE 3. The claim of the Petitioner/ applicant was considered by Sewa Mandal and the Secretary of Sewa Mandal directed Respondent No. 1 to make appointment of the Petitioner vide order dated 19.1.2001, but despite approval and direction dated 19.1.2001, the Petitioner has not been appointed and the entire family of the Petitioner is suffering from great financial crisis. 4. After not getting appointment on compassionate ground, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16586 of 2002 with the following prayers: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide compassionate appointment to the Petitioner on account of death of his father in harness by virtue of Regulation 104 of the Regulations, 1975 in compliance of the order dated 19.1.2001 passed by Sewa Mandal on a suitable post according to his educational qualification forthwith, (b) Issue any other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, (c) Award the cost of the writ petition to the Petitioner. 5. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally with the direction to the Respondents to decide the representation of the Petitioner dated 7.7.1998 within a period of two months in accordance with law vide order dated 22.4.2002. 6. The Petitioner served the certified copy of order dated 22.4.2002, upon the opposite parties on 27.4.2002, but they are sitting tight over the matter despite service of the order and are wilfully and deliberately flouting the order of this Court and are liable to punish under Contempt of Court Act. 7. 6. The Petitioner served the certified copy of order dated 22.4.2002, upon the opposite parties on 27.4.2002, but they are sitting tight over the matter despite service of the order and are wilfully and deliberately flouting the order of this Court and are liable to punish under Contempt of Court Act. 7. Notices were issued to the Respondents on 25.7.2002. 8. In response a counter-affidavit has been filed in which in Para 5 it has been stated that Sewa Mandal in its order dated 19.1.2001 directed to appoint the Petitioner under Regulation 104 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulations, 1975. Needless to say that Regulation 104 provides that in case the employee has served for minimum three years, then only after his death, compassionate appointment is made. It is submitted that the father of the Petitioner had not completed three years service in the bank, and as such the Petitioner cannot be appointed under Regulation 104 of the Regulations. It is further submitted that the answering Respondents have got no authority to appoint the Petitioner under Regulation 104 of the Regulations, which is a legal impediment. It is also denied that the copy of the order dated 22.4.2002 was ever served to the answering Respondents on 27.4.2002 inasmuch as Respondent No. 2 had joined as Chairman of the Bank on 28.5.2002 and was not the Chairman of the Bank on 4.3.2002. 9. Respondent No. 1 also states that he had joined as Officiating Secretary of the Bank on 26.6.2002. 10. None of the Respondents were holding the office of the Secretary and the Chairman on 27.4.2002 and as such the question of deciding the representation does not arise, as they have never served the copies of the Order. 11. It is submitted that the applicant has also been communicated the order passed on his representation along with letter dated 14.9.2002, inter alia, stating that the Bank has no authority to relax the provisions of Regulation 104 of the Regulations, 1975. In case if the provisions of Regulation 104 are relaxed by the Sewa Mandal and the decision of the Sewa Mandal is communicated to the Bank in this regard, necessary steps to appoint the Petitioner may be taken by the Bank. 12. In case if the provisions of Regulation 104 are relaxed by the Sewa Mandal and the decision of the Sewa Mandal is communicated to the Bank in this regard, necessary steps to appoint the Petitioner may be taken by the Bank. 12. From the facts stated above, it appears that the directions of the Sewa Mandal to appoint the Petitioner under Regulation 104 cannot be carried out as there is a legal impediment in the way of appointment of the Petitioner under Dying-in-Harness Rules. The Respondents have not committed any wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court in not granting compassionate appointment of the applicant under the aforesaid Dying-in-Harness Rules. 13. The contempt application is dismissed. No order as to costs.